I wrote about a lousy literary genre rocketing into its self-satire phase, and my hope that Michael Lewis’s Sam Bankman-Fried book will someday be appreciated as a comic masterpiece. https://t.co/RCrQT582da
— David Roth (@david_j_roth) October 17, 2023
There’s been a lot of interesting stories about both SBF and Michael Lewis over the last couple of weeks, but there’s been so much other news that there hasn’t really been space or time to share them. A taste: The always interesting Dave Roth, at NYMag (not his usual site), on “… How Michael Lewis got duped by Sam Bankman-Fried”:
… Between Going Infinite and Walter Isaacson’s enormous biography of the increasingly daffy and grim Elon Musk, it has been a rough time for the Heroes of Capitalism genre. The future prospects for that type of book are certainly still bright; Americans aren’t going to stop revering rich people just because they are “awful” or “boring” any time soon. But the ways in which Going Infinite falls short suggests a problem that goes beyond a national shortage of sufficiently compelling or just acceptably non-sociopathic rich guys. The fact that Isaacson’s “The Genius Biographies” series has declined from Leonardo Da Vinci to Steve Jobs to Elon Musk suggests not only that the heroes are getting less heroic, but that these books’ usual signifier of genius — vast wealth — has completely decoupled from any personal merit.
Part of the fun of reading Lewis’s books — and they are fun; Going Infinite is the first Lewis book I’ve read that qualifies as anything like a tough sit — is watching him hit familiar storytelling marks. A Michael Lewis book will generally describe a stubborn, widely misunderstood problem — legacy inefficiencies in the stock market or the market for corner infielders; bubbles of systemic fraud that have been missed or willfully ignored — and then introduce characters, all of them rich-but-obscure real people, who see the solution to that problem earlier and more clearly than anyone else. Much of the satisfaction of these stories comes from how deftly Lewis explains those bigger issues and the artful, affectionate way that he colors in those characters. Lewis protagonists are not always admirable, and their motivations are not necessarily pure, but because they are correct and bold and often outside of an Establishment that is more smug or more self-interested or just slower than them, they tend to make for effective heroes.
Going Infinite fails to deliver on either half of that formula. It’s not clear in the book, as it has never really been clear anywhere else, what social or economic problem is being addressed by cryptocurrency. This is doubly true of the ad hoc lawlessness of FTX, which Bankman-Fried created primarily because he (correctly) identified the crypto market as inefficient and easily gamed. Lewis admits that cryptocurrency itself doesn’t much interest him, and he is wry in his assessment of how a concept that began as “both financial innovation and social protest” swiftly became a sprawling, speculative scamscape. For a book whose story is in large part about Bankman-Fried applying the flash-trading techniques he learned during a brief career on Wall Street to the lawless frontier of crypto trading, the acknowledgment that all of this is not just meaningless but valueless lets the air out of the story a bit…
Lewis will describe Bankman-Fried doing the things he does — which, for pretty much the entirety of the book, is whatever he wants, without any apparent care for the consequences those whims might visit on anyone or anything around him — and then offer some simultaneously overwrought and underbaked explanation or justification for those actions. “He didn’t mean to be rude,” Lewis writes early in the book. “He didn’t mean to create chaos in other people’s lives. He was just moving through the world in the only way he knew how. The cost this implied for others simply never entered his calculations. With him, it was never personal.”
All of which may be true, but it is also pretty much replacement-level asshole behavior…
Bankman-Fried is a weird guy and does plenty of weird things, but he is also never quite as brilliant as this story or the usual Lewis template would require. He’s absolutely high-handed and cold and difficult to be around in the ways that geniuses are, but any sense of his genius seems to have been reverse-engineered from how unstintingly, exhaustingly reckless and unpleasant and uncaring he is. As with Musk, the fact that Bankman-Fried was a billionaire when Lewis started reporting the book seems to not just color but retroactively justify what a turd he otherwise is; why else would this distinguished author be writing a book about him?
The insistence that Bankman-Fried is just like this, and that his mistakes, whatever they might be, were just Sam being Sam, is not convincing in the book. It has not fared better at trial, where former coworkers have revealed that they knew their misuse of customer funds was risky and wrong, and did it not just at Bankman-Fried’s direction, but with his oversight. “He believed,” Bankman-Fried’s former business and romantic partner Caroline Ellison testified, “that the ways that people tried to justify rules like ‘don’t lie’ and ‘don’t steal’ within utilitarianism didn’t work.” Whatever else that also might be, this is a classic case of “a guy doing crimes,” the only real novelty being the increasingly strained justification that it was done to maximize the future benefit to humanity.
Which, again, is very funny, in a way that augurs weirdly well for Going Infinite’s future as a sort of satire of this whole genre — all the familiar Lewis beats, but none of the familiar foresight or competence from the protagonists, all amounting to a deliriously janky waste. This is the risk of trying to fit goons like Bankman-Fried into a storytelling framework that cuts them so much slack; it’s not just that it doesn’t work, but that the deference becomes part of the gag. Imagine reading a book about a basketball player exactly as competitive, driven, sadistic, and conflicted as Michael Jordan during which it gradually becomes clear that the basketball player cannot dribble with his left hand, and hates playing defense, and also frequently struggles to tie his shoes correctly…
smintheus
Bankman-Fried’s one obvious skill or area of expertise is as a shabby con-man. Does Lewis get around to acknowledging or celebrating that?
Splitting Image
As usual, there is reason to doubt the use of the word “duped” here. Lewis identified a market for a book that called Bankman-Fried a genius, so he tried to fill it, at a profit to himself. As long as it doesn’t interfere with the sales of anything Lewis might write later on, why not pocket the money?
David Frum once wrote a book on George W. Bush titled “The Right Man”.
West of the Rockies
Sounds like SFB’S AAR (Asshole Above Replacement) score would be epic.
And that ain’t good.
MattF
I’d be interested in a serious analysis of why Bankman-Fried’s ‘effective altruism’ doesn’t work. I know from personal experience that optimization via simulation is much harder, much less definitive, and much weirder than you would guess from watching any PowerPoint presentation, but are there any general Lessons To Learn?
Ben Cisco
@Splitting Image: Beat me to the point.
West of the Rockies
@West of the Rockies:
Oops… SBF.
OzarkHillbilly
I’m not gonna defend any of ML’s less than stellar works, but if that is what this individual thinks ML writes? He’s read one or 2 of his books and neither was Liars Poker, where ML skewered the idea that he should have been anywhere near a trading desk, or the ins and outs of one up man ship in Flash Boys, or the Big Short, a story of a bunch of nobody’s screaming at the top of their voices about how the RE market emperor had no clothes and was about to collapse… and hardly anybody would listen to them.
(notice how John Paulson never talked to him? That’s because he had his own book deal in the works, which is a truly disgusting example of the Heroes of Capitalism genre. (you should read it)
I’m sorry ML isn’t perfect enough to fit everybody’s standards, but than, neither am I. I have made mistakes from time to time too.
Don’t bother piling on, I won’t be here for the orgy of self righteousness.
mrmoshpotato
@Splitting Image:
The right man to… …steal a presidency, let thousands of people getting murdered on a Tuesday morning, and then become a war criminal?
LesGS
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy…”
Same old, same old.
Geminid
Has there been much reporting on who got the missing billions? I remember reading at the time that digital bandits stole it from Alameda Capital, but I always wondered if part of this was an inside job, in which Bankman-Freed or other insiders colluded with third parties to steal it. I guess federal investigators have looked hard at Bankman-Fried’s role. I’d like to know this part of the story.
karen marie
@OzarkHillbilly: Quite a flounce!
Hungry Joe
@LesGS: Hey — Tom Buchanan may have been a bully and a bigot, and a rich, privileged prig, but he was NOT shabby. (Daisy would never have allowed it.)
trollhattan
@mrmoshpotato: Let’s not forget appointing scores of assholes to the federal courts and blowing up the Clinton balanced budget.
marcopolo
I’ll stick to F Scott Fitzgerald. He’s a better writer & his characters are more interesting:
sab
@OzarkHillbilly: I agree.
cmorenc
There are other people like BF out there who are just smart and/or lucky enough to successfully and indefinitely get away with their predatory sociopathy, so long as they don’t blunder into testing their wax wings too high, too close to the sun and suffer a meltdown and crash. Donald Trump is a prime example – he hasn’t crashed yet, but his wings are starting to melt away on him under the heat of criminal and civil prosecutions. Had he not got lucky and won POTUS in 2016, or even conceded Biden’s win, he could have gone back to selling overpriced luxury condos to Russia-connected mobsters and been in a much stronger position to reclaim that office in 2024.
mrmoshpotato
@trollhattan: Balanced budget? No no, federal budget surplus!
MisterForkbeard
@smintheus: This is, oddly enough, the exact same qualifications that Trump, Elon, Elizabeth Holmes, and most other “business geniuses” have:
They’re very good at self promoting and lying, and ride that into being rich. This does not make them notable, but rather they are the standard for rich people.
Victor Matheson
@OzarkHillbilly: But it really has been a bad, bad couple of months for ML. I think Lewis is one of the great economics writers out there. I have assigned his books in class many times. I mean, the whole field of quantitative analysis of sports is just called “Moneyball” for short.
But he was duped by SBF. And Blindside is looking a lot more grim with Oher’s allegations of fraud on the part of his (maybe or maybe not) adoptive parents.
I mean, everyone can have bad moments. Marlon Brando was in famously awful Island of Dr. Moreau and Halle Berry was in Catwoman, but a lot of the sheen has come off ML recently.
Marcopolo
@LesGS: Hah, I hadn’t read the comments (cause there were so few) when I posted & you still beat me to it! Tip o’ the hat.
Anonymous At Work
It was a pretty sick takedown of the book. Not sure if this is Lewis’s first bomb or if Oher’s revelations should sink Blindside.
Anne Laurie
I personally agree with you, but I’ve been assuming we won’t hear more about what the Feds are searching for while SBF is on trial. Maybe afterwards, when Ellison, Wang, et al are due to be sentenced concerning their plea bargains?
Since I am absolutely not a lawyer, I don’t know whether it would be legally permitted for the gubmint to pull a Columbo-style Oh, just one more thing, Mr. Bankman-Fried… what about those large unexplained deposits to your / your parents’ “secret” bank account?… during the *current* trial, or if they could hold the material for a second trial, depending on how this one works out?
eclare
@Victor Matheson:
I agree about the sheen coming off of Michael Lewis. I never read The Blind Side or saw the movie, but I live in Memphis and follow SEC football, so I am familiar with the story. The arrangement always seemed sketchy to me, and after reading an interview with ML that someone here linked to, I have little doubt that Oher was exploited for money and White savior prestige.
ML is best friends with the father in the couple who took in Oher, they go back to grade school. That I did not know until this year and makes the whole setup (book, movie, etc.) even worse.
gwangung
@Anne Laurie: Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he just lost it. Amazingly over-confident, he just strikes me as just witless enough to have lost it through carelessness in his security.
SpaceUnit
I’ve known my share of crooked people and have always been struck by how often defective moral coding leads a person to think they’re the smartest person in any room.
I once worked for a business owner who cooked the books in order to sell his company at an inflated price. He too imagined himself a genius. At least he did until he was successfully sued down to his Fruit of the Looms and convicted of fraud.
Eolirin
@Victor Matheson: If you keep creating popular successful content long enough eventually it’s going to turn to shit or you’re going to start focusing on return rather than quality. It’s the rare person that can keep it going indefinitely. And rarer still those who know when to step away rather than tarnish their legacies.
Geminid
@Anne Laurie: I am GIANL- Glad I Ain’t No Lawyer- but this is the part that intrigues me, and I hope some reporters or federal prosecutors can get some ways to the bottom of it
But I guess it could have been clever hackers or scammers. Maybe some “Emirati Princess” really is a Princess now.
geg6
@Anne Laurie:
I want his parents prosecuted and to lose their professional credentials and tenure. Vile creatures who produced a vile creature. I feel the same about Musk and his entire family. Except the kids he produced who no longer speak to him, of course.
geg6
@gwangung:
This is what I think as well. Well, except what he blew on hookers a bad blow (or whatever his vices are) and the cash he shoveled to his parents.
EmbraceYourInnerCrone
@smintheus: So another Elizabeth Holmes? Except this one was selling a Magic Treasure Coin instead of a new version of snake oil/Radium miracle cure… Except he was really selling a pyramid scheme. And the fact that “mining” this magic coin took an criminal about of electricity is just the added shit frosting on the crap cake. (let put more carbon into the atmosphere why don’t we…) How did Michael Lewis think the fact Sam Bankman-Fried didn’t realize, notice or care about all the people he hurt makes it better? Just shows a complete lack of empathy. I hope the little shit goes to jail for a long time.
Hungry Joe
@geg6: Mitch McConnell’s daughters don’t speak to him. Sometimes apples actually roll (or roll themselves) a long way from the tree
Starfish
@Splitting Image: Bankman-Fried is at trial right now. One of the crypto influencers covering the trial mentioned that Lewis was there one day, sitting with the family.
Between this and the whole thing with Michael Oher, I don’t think I am nearly as interested in Lewis’s works as I used to be.
Starfish
@Geminid: There is a trial going on right now. Here is the influencer covering the thing.
Gvg
Maybe Michael Lewis is not a genius himself and wrote some good books at first because he encountered some good subjects who actually were, then he started to expect to see genius around himself, and think he was good at noticing it, so he assumed his subjects were, when he should have realized they weren’t that great and…quit those projects to find another.
Or perhaps, he has already peaked as a writer and is on his way down. A lot of creative talent does it’s best work young and never quite reaches that high again.
Eolirin
@Anne Laurie: I do think one thing that frequently gets misreported in discussing crypto losses is that those numbers are at best on paper values of dollars, not actual redeemable amounts of dollars. You can’t sell a billion dollars worth of any given crypto currency without tanking the value of the crypto currency reducing the amount of money you can extract, and there’s good reason to believe that most crypto currencies aren’t worth even a fraction of their nominal values.
The values are massively overinflated because relatively small trades back and forth between holders of the cryptocurrencies make them seem like they have far more value than they really do. But there’s no market for large scale transactions, so you can’t sell a billion dollars “worth” of crypto at anything close to a billion dollars.
In not sure if that made any of sense, but the “billions” of missing crypto wasn’t really the problem, it was just the trigger for the actual problem to be noticed, and they aren’t worth anything close to billions in the first place.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@eclare:
@Victor Matheson:
With Oher, one of the most disturbing aspects of the story is how a TN court approved the conservatorship for Oher at the Tuoys’ request. Oher does not and did not meet the criteria for one under TN law
MattF
@Starfish: Also, Molly White.
Starfish
@MattF: Molly White has been amazing!
Splitting Image
@OzarkHillbilly:
I doubt very much that you are as big a fan of Lewis as I was of Roger Waters. There is a point at which a writer becomes so far removed from what made them great that you can no longer look at what they are currently up to as “making the sort of mistake one does from time to time”.
Barbara
@MattF: Well, for one thing, it begins with the proposition that there is a coterie of wealthy people who can best deduce the needs of all humans.
It also presupposes that how they choose to direct money at meeting their own wants remains outside this judgmental framework. “I am the best person to determine what I need as well as what other people need.”
There is actually a lot of justifiable criticism of various kinds of “do gooding” but I don’t think diverting larger and larger shares of wealth to fewer “smart” well-meaning people will improve things.
Barbara
@OzarkHillbilly: Well, as with Bob Woodward, it’s not surprising Lewis hasn’t kept up his earlier standards, but there is a sense that he truly missed the “there there” of crypto currency, which is that there is no “there there.” Maybe it’s where trading was destined to end up, with really smart people engaging in financial tricks that return less and less real economic value, until you get SBF, brilliant at math, returning nothing of real economic value at all.
Ken
@MattF: @Barbara: Agreed. The claims of long-term worldwide benefits are unproved and undemonstrated, leaving behind a residue of “I should get to do whatever I want because I am a superior person.” It reminds me more than a little of the libertarians’ objectivism.
PJ
@Ken:
“Effective Altruism” is just a fancy term for getting rich at other people’s expense.
different-church-lady
…as a sociopath.
YY_Sima Qian
I have read the Blind Side and had enjoyed the movie (& loved Moneyball & the Big Short, books & movies). My biggest problem w/ Michael Lewis’ account in the Blind Side was the transparent credulity he showed to the Tuohys, possibly because of his early connection to Sean Tuohy, resolutely refusing to pull the threads on the clearly suspicious & the clearly wierd, aspects further whitewashed from the movie.
I had watched the movie 1st, reading the book collapsed my opinion of the movie because the whitewashing of the Tuohys then became apparent, even though I was fascinated by the evolution of the game of football from the 80s on.
I have no interest in reading a tortuous hagiography of SBF, & I am stunned that ML did not drop the project when FTC collapsed & SBF was charged.
Anne Laurie
I get the impression (haven’t, and probably won’t, read the SBF bio) that Lewis fell victim to his own pride. He was a serious reporter, a best-selling author, and the fact that he had a high-dollar contract to produce a big, fact SBF bio *proved* that SBF was an Important Serious Business Genius!
Author Michael Lewis does not waste his valuable perceptions on two-bit con artists, or what are all the plaudits of Very Serious People worth?
The punditorial version of the sunk cost fallacy, I guess…
Tehanu
I have been around two geniuses in my life — at least, two people I think were geniuses. It was sometimes difficult to be around them, yes — but in both cases the rewards and pleasures of their company more than made up for the moments of feeling shut out. Neither one was rich, btw — they were artists who mostly struggled for recognition — and neither one was ever an asshole to me, although I did see one speak harshly to a colleague he felt wasn’t holding up his end — but there was never, never any expectation from either that anyone would suck up or flatter them. Whereas I get the feeling from what I’ve seen of both SBF and Elmo Sunk that daring to disagree even mildly with them is a sure way to get kicked to the curb.
YY_Sima Qian
@Anne Laurie: Ha! Well put!
One more piece of evidence for the perniciousness of ipso facto equation of money w/ value & worth.
StringOnAStick
@Tehanu: I was once friends/rock climbing crew with a diagnosed narcissist, before I knew anything about what that meant. The guy was brilliant, fascinating and hilarious, and made you feel like you were part of something special. As soon as you were no longer part of his ego support system, you might as well of fallen off the face of the earth. When tRump showed up on the scene, I recognised a lot of things and came to some sense of understanding about that period in my life.
Doug
I remember hearing/reading/somethinging that crypto was being marketed heavily to people who were not traditional investors — particularly to Black people — as a chance to get in on something that “they” (insiders, big investors, elites, etc.) usually kept for themselves. So a collapse in crypto will hurt (or has already hurt) new groups of people that previous investment crashes haven’t hit directly, sucking wealth out of segments of the population that didn’t have a whole lot of it to start with.
Do y’all know whether there have there been any good articles along these lines?